To create a greater understanding of men and women and our struggle in todays society, specifically The United States. Please feel free to contribute and offer your own writings and information in the comments section.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Hmmm, do we need advertisements like this? Just the vary fact that things like this exist tells me we have major social ills. It tells me that things are getting worse.I've always felt that feminism is a self perpetuating ideology and actually creates the ills which it proports it is trying to eradicate. It is a kind of self compounding negative feedback loop.

Anyway, this ad suggests that not enough men are respecting women. Is this true? It might as well say "most men do not respect women" I think we have devolved to an era of mutual disrespect if you ask me. What are feminists trying to accomplish here? Is the growing disconnect between men women family and children all men's fault; feminists want you to believe that it is don't they. Does this advertisement promote the disrespect of men, I certainly think so!

Is respect something that is earned or given by blind deference? Excuse me, are they asking for chivalry??? Noooo they couldn't be, you see, anyone who knows the history of the feminist movement knows that men were told to go away and that chivalry was demeaning to women....remember?? Now the saying goes "chivalry is dead". Indeed chivalry IS DEAD! You see, feminism is a paradoxical self perpetuating ideology. Women are more sexualized than ever before in our history. Feminism divides men and women and creates the very disrespect and consequences of disrespect they say they so revile.

As you will see from the marriage, divorce and single woman birth rates of 40%, If not reveled, honored and respected as wife and mother what has woman become???

To me the add is a masterful work of brainwashing and social programming not unlike what I see other places in the American social culture. It is asking for a blind deference to women. I would love to hear my readers comments. What does this ad mean to you? What is the significance of the boys orange shirt in an urban setting? What association do you think orange clothing has to an urban male?

After reading the above definitions, do you think women should be given these things by men because of their gender or do you think they need to earn respect first? Do you think men should open doors for women they do not know, protect women they do not know and even die for women they do not know? Are women and girls more valuable than men and boys? What aspects of respect are women asked by society to bestow upon men exactly??? What does society urge women to do for men or to show respect to men???

What about marriage and even after divorce, do women have responsibilities and obligations to men and if so do these responsibilities embody some semblance of respect or obligation to men? Or have divorce and family law made marriage and therefore the contract of divorce superflurious and inconsequential to women?

Would it be possible to tell women along with eating their vegetables and doing their homework that they should respect and obey men? And by the very existence of this ad it presents an authority statement to people that not enough women are respecting men and obeying men as they should. Would this be ok to do?

Does the nature of this advertisement remind anyone of social programming and propaganda distributed by totalitarian regimes, dictatorships and fascists? What effect upon men do you believe ads and messages throughout our culture will have upon them upon being continually exposed to such social programming? What do you believe the real aim of this advertisement is? What is this ad really trying to accomplish? What message does it send about men to others and what does it tell men about themselves? Comments?

Here is another one to ponder: What does it mean when we label little boys as the inevitable abusers of women?

Every successful movement needs a symbol to rally by. With the growth of the Men's and Father's Rights Movement certain symbols are becoming instantly recognizable. It is of utmost importance, as the movement grows, that what ever symbol eventually takes precedent that it be displayed on cars, on shirts, on flyers and everywhere else.

Below are several symbols displayed by several elements of the Movement. I think it is of great importance that a single symbol take precedent that unites us all under one banner, one purpose.

FATHERS FOR JUSTICE:

MGTOW: MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY BANNER

MGTOW: MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY BANNER 2

WORKING IN THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY MYSELF I REALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GOOGLE DATABASE ALGORITHM RETURNING 52,500,000 RESULTS FOR MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY. THIS IS AN ASTOUNDING NUMBER. GOOGLE HAS A WORLD CLASS DATABASE AND PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS ALGORITHM THAT HAS EVEN BEEN USED TO PREDICT DISEASE SPREAD AND TRACK SUCH VECTORS AND MANY OTHER THINGS. IT DIVIDED DIVORCE INTO SEPARATE RESULTS BY DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THAT CATEGORY BUT WHEN ADDED UP WE HAVE THE BELOW RESULTS.. THE DATABASE SCOURS THE INTERNET AND FORMULATES IT'S BEST PREDICTION ON WHERE IT THINKS MEN ARE GOING OR CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING IN THEIR LIVES FOR THE TERM GOING. GIVEN THE RAW DATA IT COLLECTS. THE QUERY "MEN GOING" BRINGS US THE FOLLOWING PREDICTIONS...

I WAS VERY DELIGHTED AND BLOWN AWAY BY HOW PREDOMINATE THE MOVEMENT IS BECOMING! THE RESULTS DO NOT SUGGEST NECESSARILY THAT MGTOW IS THE TENET OF CENTRAL THOUGHT BEHIND THE MOVEMENT BUT THAT IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AND TALKED ABOUT AMONG MEN THROUGHOUT THE MOVEMENT. IT DOES HELP TO QUANTIFY THE GROWTH OR SIZE OF THE MOVEMENT.

#1 GOING THEIR OWN WAY 52,500,000-RELATED TO MEN'S AND FATHER'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT

#2 THROUGH THE CHANGE 9,860,000-PROBABLY RELATED TO OUR LARGE POPULATION OF BABY BOOMERS

#3 DIVORCE 5,860,000 -THIS IS IN THE TOP RESULTS FOR OBVIOUS REASONS (Two results showed up which were added together)

NOW, try it yourself..It's been a little bit since this article has been written..Type in MGTOW and see the number of results now! Men generally don't like to fight women...In droves we are simply walking away.......What a shame but I'm very glad that men are finding themselves and defining their lives without women and a family.....Men don't have a right to a family or children anyway, that's something women control... Why bother...

THESE OTHERS RELATE TO MEN'S FASHION AND THE LAST ONE PERTAINS TO PROPAGANDA THAT MEN ARE GOING TO DIE OFF AND GO EXTINCT.

I've looked into the "men going extinct" and found it benign feminist propaganda that has been used within feminist circles and surprisingly quite widely disseminated into popular culture. It was also published in the New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd's recent book Are Men Necessary?

This propaganda was so widely disseminated as evidenced by the google predictive analysis database algorithms but also Forbes Magazine, a primarily financial and business journal, felt it necessary to interrupt our daily commute with a page or more of top MIT science studies to reassure us men that we are ok and not going extinct. http://www.forbes.com/2005/08/31/male-sex-chromosome-cz_rl_0831male.html

ARTICLES PERTAINING TO "THE END OF MEN" AND "MEN GOING EXTINCT" ARE SIMPLY A PART OF THE MISANDRY AND CONTEMPT EVIDENT IN SOCIETY FOR MEN AND BOYS.

WOW ANOTHER MEN'S AND FATHER'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST NOTICED THE SAME QUITE SOME TIME AGO IN AUGUST OF 08.

By One Man's Kingdom | Source | August 20, 2008
In Cultural Creep, which I posted in February, I mentioned that I had done a Google search of the term 'MGTOW' and 23,600 results were returned.

A Google search on the same term today returns 41,200 results - an increase of 75% in only 6 months. If only my stocks had done so well.

I've been checking every week or so in the interim, and the growth has been steady over that period. I'd have to say that the climate has already altered since then, with writers like Stephen Baskerville, Steve Moxon and Kathleen Parker getting some serious attention. Comment counts on Glenn Sacks blog have gone astronomical, with some threads attracting over 600. Here in NZ, the incumbent Feminist government looks set to be trounced in the impending October/November election, with the likely conservative opposition party promising to end welfare to single mothers as soon as their youngest goes to school.

The below news report was taken from Feministing.com, the popular third wave feminist site for young women. Much of third wave feminism incorporates spreading feminism around the world.

"Tens of thousands of people in Mali's capital, Bamako, have been protesting against a new law which gives women equal rights in marriage.The law, passed earlier this month, also strengthens inheritance rights for women and children born out of wedlock.Sigh. Perhaps even more depression-inducing is this quote from Hadja Sapiato Dembele of the National Union of Muslim Women's Associations: "A man must protect his wife, a wife must obey her husband...It's a tiny minority of women here that wants this new law - the intellectuals. The poor and illiterate women of this country - the real Muslims - are against it."

MY RESPONSE BELOW that I was unable to post there as for some reason it will not let me register. I am not sure if they blocked my IP or what. I have to post under the guise of a woman there as speech is highly censored on this site. As you may well know comment approval censorship is rampant on feminist sites or videos.

"The law, passed earlier this month, also strengthens inheritance rights for women and children born out of wedlock."

"A man must protect his wife, a wife must obey her husband"

So the law states by inference that a man is no longer required to protect, provide and make decisions that lead to these ends that the wife is supposed to support in earnest.

This is a real important step toward independence for women there! So the forced transference of inheritance of the man's wealth to a woman that has not married him and to a child that was born out of wedlock in this relationship is a great idea. It reminds me of our no-fault divorce law as well as alimony and child support.

It reminds me of what Vickie said over at thridage.com (http://www.thirdage.com/living-single/why-some-women-will-never-get-married "Vickie of Orlando e-mailed, "I receive a nice alimony check each month, eventually 50 percent of his Social Security, and upon his death, hundreds of thousands in life insurance. So why would I even think of getting married again?"

So since they have passed the law it looks like she does not even have to marry him to get inheritance and has all the rights out of wedlock. We need more laws like this here that help women and their children get support from men in or out of marriage. Here in the U.S. we have to marry first and as long as we don't remarry after divorce and meeting our new suitor and provider we get support from the old one as well. Why should women be forced into any arrangement with men and not be supported by them!!! I think it's a good law and I support the intellectual women there who came up with it. Men and government have the obligation to support independent women. We should not have to commit to men or family in order to support ourselves and our children.

Does the law create a reciprocal obligation that the woman has to do for the man in this arrangement? I think it seems fair on the surface but what does he get? I mean I suppose bearing children for him is something he gets. If she leaves him does she take the children as well like in the U.S. and other western nations? I mean I don't want to offend anyone but I'm just looking at both sides here..

It is no wonder "tens of thousands" of women and people are protesting this. These women value the sacred commitment of marriage and family, they honor and respect their husbands and their family. Give it time though, marriage, family and fatherhood will be destroyed there as well..

It seems to me that feminists are trying to build a culture of mutual disrespect between men and women. Resentment and disrespect is a reciprocal and compounding issue. This law is surely going to build resentment and disrespect toward women who are now able to rape men of their money out of wedlock.

Below is a letter a young woman wrote to the popular third wave feminist site Feministing.com. It serves to demonstrate how women are being indoctrinated to view themselves as the victims of men and society, incites the view of relations between men and women as a marxist class struggle and furthermore cultivates misandry, hatred and contempt of men and boys. She is beginning to see "patriarchy" in all her interactions with men. Women have been put through these feminist boot camps for generations. I am thankful that it is finally coming to a head and creating utter destruction.

In fact it is my Women's Studies class that I took in college as well that led to my becoming a Men's and Father's Rights Activist.. Though I hope much differently for the future of the Men's Movement. God help us if we become like our enemy.

I am almost twenty years old, a soon-to-be sophomore in college, and have been in a monogamous relationship for the past three years (and am now living with my boyfriend). This past year, thanks to the liberal musings of my boyfriend and this lovely blog, I have taken a great interest in breaking down society - especially the representation and treatment of women.

I am currently taking my first women's and gender studies class (Intro.) and have begun to question EVERYTHING. While rendering T.V., magazines, chats with friends, chats with my parents, etc. completely unentertaining (and often unnerving), it is somewhat affecting my relationship. My boyfriend considers himself a feminist, and while he plays into some gender stereotypes (likes when I wear makeup, dress sexy), he cooks meals, cleans dishes/clothes, is extremely giving in bed, and will call out the objectification of/stereotypical attitudes towards women (he was raised by a very strong mother).

Yet, lately I see him as the total enemy, undermining me to hold his power --- I'm not joking. For example, I found an advertisement in GQ that I found particularly offensive and stereotypical and posted it on the fridge door. He told me that I should take it down, that it wasn't even "that good" and that I misunderstood the context. Another example, I told him a project idea for my women's studies class, he immediately launched into how it was a terrible idea and that blah blah blah. Now, I am open to constructive criticism (I think), but I feel like his insensitive remarks are a way to debase my intelligence. It is as if he knows everything, and instead of softening the blow with "oh..that was good, but" he has to criticize every. single. aspect. He has to maintain his power, his authority, his superior intelligence.

I approached him after these events, calmly, and asked what he was thinking, why he opposes my idea, why he chooses to phrase it in a way that makes me feel upset, etc. But he tells me to lower my voice (though it really isn't loud!) and he gives me the shush face (we have roommates). When he talks about our relationship, it is not "talking," when I talk about our relationship, it is "bickering."

I'm sorry if this is a bundle of nonsense, or self-pitying reflection, but I wanted to know the opinions of other feminists on how to deal with this issue.

Thank you in advance!

While reading another article on an MRA blog I noticed I am not alone in my observation. I like the way this fellow MRA explains the social paradigm created in Women's Studies classes:

Patriarchy theory is the harness, the device which draws together all of that otherwise random energy, magnetizes it, points it in a politicized direction, makes it into a coherent cultural undertow, a galvanizing narrative unity. . .

Propagate this narrative among the masses, or even the camouflaged elements of this narrative, and women everywhere will take the idea on board, finding in it a convenient way to conflate their dysfunctional psychic tendencies with what appears to be a transcending rationale—something "bigger than themselves", a Great Excuse From Heaven that parts the clouds and descends to earth like a sparkling column of sunlight. The narrative, once internalized, spawns a multitude of spinoffs, sub-narratives, sub-memes and hybrids, all of which make their way from mind to mind through a variety of channels, dispersing randomly, like a fog, through the mental environment. Soon, it becomes difficult to define the source, or to occupy any kind of external standpoint.

The "personal" becomes the "political", and so every encounter with a male person becomes (potentially) a politicized moment, framed in the rhetoric of power imbalance. This instills women with a vague, almost mystical sense that some manner of recompense is owed them simply because they are female—and traces of this feeling can percolate into the smallest transactions of life.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

All the recent discussion on various blogs about the decline of marriage and fatherhood has got me to thinking. Suppose you were on a cruise ship that got sucked into a maelstrom and landed on an island in a parallel universe. While on the island, you notice a odd phenomenon about the natives. All the men insist on only marrying healthy, attractive women. However, they routinely deny women adequate nutrition, exercise, etc. The end result is that most women are not attractive enough for the men. Also, the men routinely ignore some of the women who are partially attractive because the men have such high standards. So many partially attractive women grow old without a husband. Then the men ignore these women even more and accuse these women of having issues. The men also complain about their being "not enough good women to go around."

How would you feel about these men? How should one feel? You know where I am going with this, don't you? Yep, let's turn the tables. Now you know just how despicable many women are. There is a systemic problem with female expectations in this society. Let's face the facts: Men have been betrayed by women. When many of us were growing up in the shadow of feminism, we were told that women wanted equality. Did that mean true equality? Men were promised that they could be sensitive and they didn't have to be success objects. Men were led to believe that social dominance wasn't not as important as a man's character. Men were led to believe that women would love them for who they were and not for the roles people expected men to fulfill. It's all been a lie.

Too many women are not interested in equality as they are in "eekwalitee" (having their cake and eating it, too). Women are the choosier sex and often express a preference for socially dominant males (men who are confident, ambitious, resilient, industrious, and who have social assets - whether that be looks, wealth, intelligence, or whatever suits the whim of women for that given moment). After all, we are told that women need to pick wisely in order to maximize the benefit for their offspring.

And yet what have we seen?

1. Men being socially disenfranchised as women compete with them for social, legal, and economic power. Men are left scratching their heads. How can women expect men to provide something that women are taking away in the first place?

2. Men have been psychologically beaten down by an anti-male society. From an early age onward, they receive little or no affirmation or encouragement. They encounter very few positive male role models and they receive no real mentoring. Mostly it's blame, recrimination, ridicule, vilification, and neglect they receive at the hands of others and the hands of culture as a whole. The end result is that these men either don't have self-confidence or don't have any ambition (traits women find attractive in men). How could the men have these traits? How could they feel that they have a stake in a society that repeatedly demonstrates indifference, distrust, or outright hostility towards them? Again, how can anyone expect men to possess something that is being taken away in the first place?

The bottom line is that men are having an increasingly difficult time being what women want them to be. And what's even more disconcerting is that many women don't even seem to be bothered by that. It's make one wonder if women have just seen men as a means to an end: genetic material and resources for the offspring. Now that women can receive much of what they want without men, look how many of them act. Women in the mainstream media revel about the demise of men. If these women said similar things about blacks or Jews, they would be dismissed as mentally unhinged. Indeed, they are mentally unhinged, but very few people challenge these women on their sick, mindless, androphobic drivel.

Don't you dare tell me it's "the way women are" and that I need to deal with it. If we place social constraints on the behavior of men, then corresponding constraints need to be placed on women. Churches rant and rave about male promiscuity, the "male gaze", and men "being hung up on looks." Where are the church sermons that address the problem women have in objectifying men as success objects? Have you heard any lately? In the animal kingdom, a lot of female organisms work to accumulate resources for themselves and their offspring with little or no regard for others. Male organisms are reduced to a disposable resource. What are faith communities doing to challenge women to move beyond such a base mode of existence? We talk about a "Christian worldview" but I think a lot of conservative women act like Darwinists in their relationship with men. We are hypocritical when we suggest that masculinity and the male sex drive are sinfully disordered (a result of the Fall, or whatever), but the behavior of women is just "something natural" and the "way they were designed." Excuse me, but I have a difficult time believing the Creator designed women to treat men like tools, or worse, like garbage.

A lot of women are being incredibly foolish if they think society can move on just fine without being concerned about the welfare of men. Readers should take note of this: Women have no power unless men consent to it. That even goes for sexual power. If men don't have a personal stake in the welfare of future generations, then there won't be any future generations. If a critical mass of men start caring more about video games than about impregnating women and parenting the resultant offspring, then this society will fall flat on its face (or it will be replaced by something more rooted in reality). The future is not independent-minded white women. The future is traditionalist, brown-skinned women of an "ancient and enduring" people "whose language you do not know."

Women can't expect to play "top dog" and yet be married to the "top dog." There can only be one "top dog." Embracing gender equality means ditching the Alpha Male Fantasy(tm). Embracing the Alpha Male Fantasy(tm) means ditching gender equality. Remember what I said about the New Gender Deal. Women can't have it both ways.

People also need to start showing genuine compassion, concern, and respect for men as human beings; they need stop acting like men need to earn these things. Otherwise, an increasing amount of men are going to get the idea that nobody genuinely and honestly cares about their inherent worth as people. When men start believing that, they are not going to show much care and concern in return. I think that lies at the heart of much of the crimes men commit.

In short, if nothing changes, then women are going to destroy this society. It's going to be a classic case of the Tragedy of Commons. You don't like me talking about women? Too bad. There's going to be little or no real progress for men and women until women get their act together and rethink their behavior. We can blame the government, the liberals, the New World Order, technology, chivalrous men, genes, or whatever, but here's the indisputable truth: A critical mass of women are primarily responsible for the mess that has come about. Someone needs to point this out. When women constantly belittle, demean, and marginalize men at every turn, someone needs to say something. When women try to have their "eekwalitee" cake and eat it too, giving men the shaft in the process, someone needs to say something. Otherwise, the whole mess is going to explode in the face of women, and they will have no one to cry to.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

I was on NovaSeekers blog and found an interesting article. As we all know the family i.e. man, woman and child is dying. Fathers are dying and men being able to have a family is dying as well. It all does not look well. So here is my take on it. I wonder what you all have to say. I'd love to hear comments. I find the death of men husbands and fathers in our society very interesting, particularly since many of the sociological and judicial law changes that have taken place is second wave feminist or female driven. 70% of divorce is initiated by women as well along with our 40% single woman birth rate. The destruction of family, particularly our fatherless epidemic is very interesting.

"More than 79% of Americans feel the most significant family or social problem facing America is﻿ the physical absence of the father from the home. Research shows that the lack of a father in the home correlates closely with crime, educational and emotional problems, teenage pregnancy, and drug and alcohol abuse."

Source: Ad Council United States

I find it interesting that of all the rest of divorces which are initiated by men (30%) only a fraction of those relationships involve children. In many cases men only initiate divorce when they have no children.

According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children."

My father is a dedicated, kind and loving man that would sneak up to see me every chance he got. He would drive an hour each way to visit me during Summer break from school while my mother was at work and I was home alone for the Summer. During the late 80's and 90's sociologist gave a name for these children, "latch key kids". I had to keep my fathers involvement in my life a secret from my mother though. I remember how special it was to see him and how I was kinda scared he would get caught being a father to me. The court says that only women can have children and fathers should only get "visitation" of 4 days a month. The law says that men must support a woman financially no matter what, even if she leaves you and takes your children. Should a man loose his job or is unable to pay he will face jail or interest payments payed directly to the woman as punishment when he is able to support her again. It was that way with my dad as well. I would visit him at his house 4 days a month (every other weekend). I remember how empty his apartment was and how little money he had. Most of it went to my mother and the mortgage on the house she took from him. I love my mother. He never once said anything bad about my mother. He spent quality time with me. I remember making a tent out of bed sheets.

There is an effort now to try and bring men back into the family, not by women but by government. I don't think the government knows all the causes. For now I guess we will just have to blame men for all this as the U.S. ad council does. It was not always like this. Our families were not always like this. Men used to have families, children used to have fathers.

Divorce Rate:http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.htmlThis one is interesting as you can see where divorce plateaued and appeared to decline but this was the critical mass point at which the decline of marriage started to catch up along with increasing preference for loose knit cohabitation and single woman births rather than marriage. I've always found the skyrocketing divorce rate and it's correlation with the date and time of second wave feminism and second wave feminist divorce laws very interesting. PLEASE READ, DIVORCE DECLINING BUT SO IS MARRIAGE BY 50% IN FACT.http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/03/divorce-declining-but-so-is-marriage-by.html

This is where men are going now. A 400% percent increase in incarceration rates.A GOOD READ: http://www.boysproject.net/papers/The_State_of_American_Manhood.pdf

I'm not sure if everyone knows so I have to repeat stats throughout my blog but single parent families in the U.S. is synonymous with fatherless families as 90% of men loose their children in divorce.

Single woman birth rate: This one is also very interesting. 1 in 4 women now carry a disease that is sexually transmitted. HPV and cervical cancer is on the rise. They have created a vaccine for certain types but disease among women is a major problem and part of our new family structure or rather a lack there of. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/fertunm.html

This graph is slightly dated, the single mother birth rate is now 40% of all births.Feminists know that this is the result of their agenda. I believe that is why they are making more calculated implementation of laws in other countries that give women rights to male resources out of wedlock see: Anti Feminist Protests in Mali a few blog posts up:http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/08/anit-feminist-protests-in-mali.html

I like what the other commenter said:

"Pre-marital sex screwed up many things. It allowed the top 10-15% of men to lead on the top 50% of women, and the top 30% of men to lead on the top 70% of women. Porn, romance novels/chick flicks/prostitutes fill in the gaps so the existence isn't so unbearable and the years keep on flying by."

"Getting to have sex with men in the top 20% of attractiveness would be drug-like for a gal who is in only the top 40-50% of attractiveness, and it makes it hard for her to settle for a man who merely is like herself, right in the middle of the attractiveness scale."

So I think what we are looking at here is an artificially created sexual selective dynamic which has a tight threshold of males able to mate or females that will mate with them. The only place I've seen such a threshold is in nature where the male is not needed to provide resources and multiple females are able to mate with the alpha male as in deer and many other animals.

The one defining factor is the lack of need for a male to a mated pair bond to provide resources. We humans have created this systemically as we have extremely long gestation periods for our offspring and in actuality a male is needed to stay in the pair bond to ensure survival. The difference being is that we do this through alimony, child support, government husbandry and president placed on female independence and resource acquisition by herself.

With the male nullified I see it is increasingly the case that we will have fatherless children and many men who will not be able to have a family. Those that do are subject to forced systemic resource transference outside the mated pair bond after divorce. The female is also able to increase her genetic fitness in this model as she is able to mate again after divorce where as the males are left without a family and rights to their own resources to start another family or support another family.

I imagine this dynamic will create quite a few men who do not find incentive to produce and will increasingly become more predatory upon society rather than provisionary.

The current dynamic aligns with all the male health indicators. Male suicide has tippled since 1970, particularly among boys and men ages 15-27. Some of these boys have decided to kill others before killing themselves. School shootings, mass shootings and murder suicides began to present itself among men and boys in the 1990's. Those of you old enough to remember know that men and boys did not always kill themselves and others in such proportions in the past it was unheard of. Males have been dropping out of colleges and now only acquire 40% of all degrees. This does not include the policies enacted to force males out of college such as Title IX, Affirmative Action and women only loans and scholarships. The decline of men from the public sphere and the effect on the forced marginalization of men and boys is evident. In 1964, 72 percent of men voted for president, while that number today has dropped to 53 percent today.

The effect is compounded by female privileged laws designed to accelerate and facilitate this as well as no-fault divorce that feminists successfully tied to default awards of alimony, child support and default female child custody.

I think the key for feminists would be to close the raw wage gap or surpass the aggregate of male monetary productive capacity at all costs. I think this is why they are speaking of extending Title IX to all science, technical and engineering departments. At this point females have a 60% of college degrees. I think the goal is to get them to 70-100% of college degrees. This is important as it will serve to marginalize men out of the family as planned. See the below study extract:

-- Education and Hypergamy, and the “Success Gap” by Prof. Elaina Rose * Department of Economics University of Washington contact email erose@u.washington.eduhttp://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2005/0109_1300_0701.pdf

Here: The more educated or "independent" a female is, the less likely she will find a mate she sees as adequate and the less likely she will mate and have children.

Thus the lower the chances she will ever become a mother.

The reverse it true for men: The more education and resources the man has the more likely he will find a mate. This is hypergamy in action. I think perhaps that hypergamy is female driven and the dissolution of family is exacerbated by female instinct for "successful" males. The more educated and independent a woman is, the more resourcefully successful she is, the less adequate the males around her seem to be.

Though at all levels men are increasingly turning away from marriage. Some sociologists refer to this as the "marriage strike" among men. Perhaps it is because men don't have any rights in marriage. Perhaps it is because sex is widely and easily available to men out side marriage and with many different women. Perhaps hypergamous preferences in females slow down female mate selection as females become more educated. I suspect all three factors.A GOOD READ: http://www.boysproject.net/papers/The_State_of_American_Manhood.pdf

In her report Prof. Rose states:

"“Hypergamy” is the tendency for women to marry up with respect to education or other characteristics associated with economic well-being. For a given level of hypergamy, an increase in the education of women relative to men will tend to increase the “success gap” (i.e., the disadvantage faced by successful women in the marriage market). I track the success gap with U.S. Census data and find that the success gap declined between 1980 and 2000 – when women’s education increased with respect to men’s. This is because hypergamy was not constant – it also declined. Similarly, we would expect marriage rates to fall for men at the bottom of the distribution. This was consistent with the data. The decline in hypergamy was concentrated at the top of the distribution. Over the period, hypergamy increased at the bottom of the distribution. (The author is demonstrating the increased marginalization of males from mating, marriage and the opportunity to have a family leading to an over all decline of marriage) She states "Changes in family policy such as theliberalization of divorce laws, as well as shifts in social norms, have reinforced these trends."

"Patterns in education have changed considerably as well. Overall, the population of both men and women in the U.S. has become more educated, and women have become more educated relative to men."

"Marriage has changed substantially in the last several decades. The most notable change is the overall decline. At any given age, individuals are less likely to be, or have ever been, married. According to Becker’s [1977] work, the decline can be explained by the increase in women’s labor supply and market human capital which has reduced the gains from specialization and exchange in marriage. Other explanations include the improvement in birth control technology (Akerloff et al [1995] and Goldin and Katz [2002]) and the increase in welfare generosity (government husbandry taking the place of husbands and fathers for resource provision to the family) (Murray, 1984) 1 . Grossbard-Schechtman [1993] relates the decline in women’s propensity to marry"

(I note that: Further more the tendency for women to not stay married and initiate divorce do to feminist implementation of no fault divorce, default female child custody and forced male resource provision while remaining in isolation from the female and child with alimony and child support further exacerbates the problem. Divorce is 70% female initiated and the out of wedlock birth rate of 40% of all births is female driven.

"If women tend to marry up with respect to, say, education, and if education isdistributed similarly by sex, (which it is not as women earn 60% of all college degrees which further exacerbates the issue) women at the top of the distribution will have more limited options,and a negative relationship between education and marriage will emerge."

However the author states that though net hypergamy has declined it has only done so at the top of the educational distribution. In other words when the most highly of educated women do marry, there is little disparity between a top producing career woman and a top producing career man. Overall though becoming a highly educated career woman comes at a cost as seen in the rapid decline in the probability of marriage for these women as well as the probability of having children as is evidenced by the graphs above.

Anyway, I'm quite interested in the sociology of the black community because they have surpassed 70% single woman birth rates and their fatherless rate is very high along with educational disparity between black men and women. Net hypergamy has also decreased for black women. Though the author did not publish that data for black "% mothers" I suspect that it is incorporated in graph above though the author did not specify. The black community is an interesting model to demonstrate where we are headed with the increase in the hypergamic indicators noted above. So I think white males and the rest of society will see a clear decline in the majority of male place in society and male behavior.. Increase in crime, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, lower educational achievement, fatherless families etc etc etc. The black community serves as a perfect construct to illustrate the changes that are to come given the same variables present in their community.

In fact all of these indicators are increasing in males in our society at the moment and sociological behavior of males in society by enlarge is starting to align with male behavior under the same factors as black males have been exposed to. I don't see a stop to it any time soon. All health indicators for males point to a severe decline and I am concerned about the family structure as the graphs I've pointed out above show significant momentum. I don't think they will decline anytime soon...Too many single mothers has created a legacy of young men without the knowledge of how to be fathers as fathers are increasingly pushed out of their homes and from the lives of their children. Even the young fathers who are present often have little knowledge of fathering, having been denied the benefit of a father themselves. I think people are starting to realize what is happening but I think it is to late to fix it and it will take a lot of time to repair.

The only solution AS THE LAWS CURRENTLY STAND and as men are not valued or needed as fathers and husbands men should not be required to support a female and child with alimony and child support. When males are not needed in nature and monogamous pair bonds are not formed the males mate and go their own way... In my mind anything less than complete independence for men is unacceptable. Males must withdraw completely. Men must become "independent" as women have. Female "independence" as it is called is actually another name for "not needing a man" as a husband or a father to children. Men need to respond to this accordingly. I think it is the men who want a family, a wife and child the most that are most passionate and resentful of our current situation.

Chivalry and other elements of male connection to women and "their" children needs to decline. Men have increasingly dissconnected from commitment, protection, provision and chivalry to women but it needs to continue. Black males have adapted well and I admire their response of independence. I believe men and women are indeed going our separate ways as women wanted but the last of male ties to protection and provision to women MUST BE ELIMINATED for equality to exists as women want. We must not have mutual dependence, need or obligation to one another or to a family. The collective statement of women as is seen from the graphs above, is the divorce of males in general at a societal level. Now that this is occurring it is important we arbitrate the terms of the death of marriage and family.. Men should not be left with nothing while footing the bill as is currently the case. Make no mistake, WOMEN WANT "INDEPENDENCE" and we must free ourselves from them as well. We have no choice now...

I want men to have families though, I want men to have children...I don't want this to happen to us but it is, and as such, at an alarming rate.... There is no turning back men, you must fight for your rights in this new order! Stand together and fight for Men's and Father's Rights! If not your dignity or rights to your own working labor and forced servitude to financially support a woman that divorced you, AT LEAST YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE LIFE OF YOUR CHILDREN, TO BE A FATHER. It is a hard and uphill battle. I don't blame you from withdrawing from commitment to women, marriage and to your estranged children. I respect your decision of independence from your disposability and the hypocrisy you face.

A good read: http://biblicalmanhood.blogspot.com/2009/08/delay-of-marriage-men-are-not-problem.html

Excerpts: The Cinderella Paradox

"I've blogged about this one, and it's related to the "Cosmo Complex." Women tend to be hypergamous. The "Paradox" is that as women increase their social status, the ability of men to be desirable mates for these women decreases. The pyramid narrows at the top, but don't tell this to the modern woman. She has conned herself into believing that their are enough men of high status to go around who are, at the same time, serious about marriage."

"We can't put the toothpaste back into the tube, tell women to stop seeking prestigious jobs, or tell them to get back into the kitchen and bake some pie. But the doesn't stop many so-called liberated women from confining men to the old, stereotyped role of being "the main earner" does it? The reason there is a delay in marriages is because a critical mass of women show they are clueless about this matter."

Sooo, will women change, will they allow men to be freed from our oppressive role as provider now that women are independent? Or will they continue to be our foes, or competitors and demonstrate the hypocrisy of feminism. Will they continue to blame men for this?

Men, I to am becoming a hardened shell unto myself. I desire a wife, a child a family but I know in an instant, if she decides, it can all be taken away from me. I will never marry in the legal sense and am afraid of being a heartless shadow in the life of my child as I know that at any moment a woman can take my child away from me. I am afraid to commit to a woman or get to close to my prospectful children.

In exploring my feelings I found the below:

"Sonja Hastings of Fathers-4-Equality says that “no matter how decent, hardworking, and caring you may be as a father, that in the event of separation, you will more than likely not get custody of your child, you will lose up to 80% of all of your assets, you will have to pay up to five times the cost of raising a child, (in alimony and child support) and most importantly you could never see your child again.” In Britain a fathers’ rights group tours university campuses warning young men not to start families. Even one attorney writes a book concluding that the only effective protection for men to avoid losing their children is not to start a family in the first place."

As a young man in college, I was red in the face at what they were telling me in my Women's Studies class. So I sought out resources to understand what is happening and how I can adapt accordingly. At this point it seems I need to think about disconnecting from paternal investment in my offspring or support of a family in marriage and move on to something that allows me independence. I don't want to get my cell phone bill, electric bill, child support bill and woman support bill and have that be my existence. I think detaching from women and fatherhood is a rather smart strategy.

Novaseeker has written an excellent paper which Men's Rights groups are discussing to figure out where the movement needs to go. The paper helps young men understand the new mating model and to help them adapt accordingly. The rise of the "hook up" culture, "The Game" and PUA's or "pick up artists" and the "playa" or "player" is a growing phenomenon as well. Courtship towards the ends of marriage is not so much the case or an ideal and healthy choice for men. These adaptations have rightfully spread from the ostracized males of the black community to the rest of society. Women and feminists seek such ends (perhaps unknown to themselves) as to the wide spread sexualization and devaluation of women as something to commit to.

Males are adapting to optimize for little commitment and short term mating opportunities that females now present to them. Sex is now widely available from women as well as rampant disease (1 in 4 women carry a disease that is sexually transmitted)Sex being as separated from reproduction has opened the door to a new mating dynamic that has assisted, along with other feminist laws to destroy the monogamous pair bond structure of marriage.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

The below video would be seen as something from a science fiction film by our grandparents and generations past. A dystopian reality where men are no longer part of a family or the lives of their children has come to be reality in the year 2009. This change in the American family began 40 years prior. They would never have thought that the President of The United States would one day have to address the entire nation on the lack of a father in the home and in the lives of children. They never would have thought it would come to this point. Such a civilization and it's social culture are certainly worse off by this. Surely such a culture is destined for a continual decline. Indeed I am concerned about the future of my country, a country which is suffering a collapse of it's infrastructure in all realms, including the family.

I've got a proposal Mr. President, how about you allow men to be fathers! How about you support shared parenting and equal divorce law so that men don't loose their homes, their children and rights to their working labor supporting a woman who left them through no fault divorce and a child that has been taken away from him. No father should be a "visitor" of 4 days a month in a child's life. 90% of men loose their children in divorce. 70% of all divorce is initiated by women. I ask you Mr. President who is it really that is abandoning their families? Maybe the same people who entitled themselves to gain alimony and child support even in no-fault divorce,, The Women's Party the Feminists! Maybe the same people who lobbied to create no-fault divorce, The Women's Party, the Feminists. Of the 30% of all divorces that are initiated by men many if not most are of relationships where the man and woman did not have children.

So again Mr. President, according to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children."

How dare you speak to men in such a condescending way. "Take your kid to the zoo, play catch etc etc... How dare you act as if we need to teach men to love their children. How dare you... I have never been married and am not a father but I know the forces I face for Men's and Father's Rights in my country. Men have been cast out of the family structure in the largest proportions in history and now you are trying to tell men it's their fault, that fatherhood is in crisis and it's men who need to man up and solve the issue!!!? Men are fighting EVERYDAY to be fathers. The Men's and Father's Rights Movement is growing. I urge you Mr. President to go to ACFC.org and sign the shared parenting petition.

FIX FAMILY LAW AND STOP YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS BLAMING MEN FOR AMERICA'S RECORD RATE OF DISSOLVED FAMILIES, OUR 40% SINGLE WOMAN BIRTH RATE, OUR 50% DIVORCE RATE, OUR 70%+ FEMALE INITIATED DIVORCE RATE AND FATHERLESSNESS..... YOU FEMINIST, YOU ASSHOLE, HOW DARE YOU BLAME MEN AND PUT ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THIS ON OUR SHOULDERS!.........FATHERS ARE DISPOSABLE WHILE FORCED TO SUPPORT WOMEN AND THEIR ESTRANGED CHILDREN REMEMBER? MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS NOT A MALE DRIVEN PROBLEM. INCREASINGLY SO, MEN ARE RESPONDING ACCORDINGLY TO THEIR DISPOSABLITLY.

Really??? That's strange, men vary rarely abandon their families Mr. President.. In fact men only initiate 30% of all divorce and many if not most of these cases do not involve children.....

With all due respect Mr. President I just graduated college several years ago and young boys and girls are taught not only in my Women's Studies class but even in my philosophy class that men are not necessary as husbands and fathers. You see we were all taught that all that is necessary for the development of children is the extended family of grandparents, uncles and aunts and the myriad of men that come in and out of the homes of single mothers and "their" children or simply a loving gay or lesbian couple. Even I fell for it.

It was my Women's Studies class that made me realize that it was all a lie. You see, they say single motherhood is a lifestyle choice remember? What do you think brings me here to create my blog? My Women's Studies class you idiot. I was so angry at what they were teaching in my college my mother was worried about me (The court said my father is only a visitor in my life but he did not give up). I came home red in the face my president. Think real hard about the changes in our culture in the last 35-40 years. Take a good hard look at feminism. You know, the people you surround yourself with and convinced you to create the Council on Women and Girls only. Those people!!!

Subscribe To REBUKING FEMINISM

About Me

Premise Claimer

To create a greater understanding of men and women and our struggle in todays society in the United States. Please feel free to contribute and offer your own writings and information in the comments section and at REBUKEFEM@YAHOO.COM.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or the people"

- 10th Amendment United States Constitution

Feminism stands on the principal of equality or classlessness. These principals are the hallmark of Marxist socialist theory. Essentially equal outcome by unequal means and unequal protection under law to reach these ends.

Males being a minority both in numbers and a minority of the voting majority has lead to class conflict, oppression and division based off "gender" of this minority class.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, (the female voting and numerical majority) that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority (males) possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression" - President Thomas Jefferson.

Affirmative Action, Title IX, VAWA, Divorce, Family and Child Custody Law to name a few.

Make no mistake, women are not your natural enemy. However, they are the body politic of feminism and the female political agency responsible for it. All women are responsible for feminism and the actions of their union. They have created class division between men and women toward the ends of dividing us both. The division of male and female as separate classes with unequal representation under law and policy has been the principal means to usurp and rule our people. Feminism has destroyed the common felicity between men and women. Feminism removed ALL male rights in marriage and thus divorce while absolving women of all liability of commitment. Feminism has removed the right to fatherhood. Men have no place in the family and should not commit to the institution of it. We must both fight the tyranny of feminism.